1

Information and Knowledge, Knowledge Management,

State-of-the-art of Modeling

PA116 – L6

(c) Zdenko Stanicek, Sept. 2010

2

Discussion

• What is “Knowledge” ?• What is the difference between knowledge

and information?– Is there any difference?– Is a knowledge a special case of information?

• What definition of “information” we will use?– Shannon’s one?– Carnap’s one?

2

3

Information• According to Shannon:

– Information is a reduction of a ratio of entropy.• The measure is relative with respect to a receiver.

• According to Carnap:– Information contained in a proposition is

measured by a number of “possible worlds” excluded by the “true” value of this proposition.

• This is an absolute measure.

• Carnap is our choice !

4

Discussion onthe next slide

Classify the following propositions:

• It is raining outside.

• Usually, I have my wallet in the left pocket of my jacket.

• If the rain will go for a long time there will be puddles and morass on country roads.

• A square over hypotenuse equals the sum of squares over cathetae.

5

Pythagorean Theorem

6

Some information is knowledge, some is not !!!Some knowledge is not information !!!

Information Knowledge

Knowledge:

• DEFINITION: Knowledge is an (intangible) element which helps to a systematic and repeatable management or driving or executing of processes.

7

Knowledge: where it dwell and what to do with it ?

• Knowledge dwells in human heads• (and maybe in artificial agents simulating people

behavior)• … in any case it dwells in appropriately organized

memory• To deal with projects we need knowledge• Often knowledge is encoded in a program code of

applications• Knowledge has to be developed and maintained• It is important not to lose knowledge• Knowledge has to be worked on effectively and

efficiently

• Hence we need “Knowledge Management”

8

Knowledge - Information - Processes

• Performance of a process is influenced by information (input)

• Process produces information (output)• To execute a process (within a project) we

need knowledge• There is a continual change and evolution• Knowledge has to be developed• Appropriate information has to be sought

for

9

Knowledge Life-Cycle by Nonaka and Takeushi

Knowledge

Tacit

Explicit

socialization

combination

externalization

internalization

SECI model

10

Agree what you know about the

problem

Do and recognize constraints

and/or ambiguities

Improve the agreement/

execute a new iteration

Agree-Do Paradigm

11

Agree what you know about the

problem

Do and recognize constraints

and/or ambiguities

Improve the agreement/

execute a new iteration

Agree-Do ParadigmMENTION

MENTION

USE

12

Decision: Set the aim/goal

Describe WHAT, HOW, …

(Agree !)

Act according tothe description

(Do !)

Tune the processand/or description

Revise the aim/goal(WHAT, HOW, …)

Continual Improvement !!!

Cyclical Paradigm

(Agree !)

(Agree !)

(Agree !)

13

MENTION USE

The Nonaka-Takeushi Life-Cycle in a relation with a MENTION and USE switching

Knowledge

Tacit

Explicit

socialization

combination

externalization

internalization

14

Knowledge Management means to keep the Nonaka-Takeushi

cycle in a run !

Knowledge

Tacit

Explicit

socialization

combination

externalization

internalization

15

MENTIONing Knowledge means

creating a MODEL of a part of reality (a DOMAIN) containing the particular

Knowledge !

16

Modeling and modeling tools: state-of-art

17

Available modeling tools (MT)

CASE tools– CASE: Computer Aided Software Engineering– any computer-based tool for software product

planning, development, and evolution

– Editors, Compilers, Debuggers, Edit-Compile-Debug environments, Code Generators, Documentation Generators, Requirements Tracing, Change Management (CM), Defect Tracking, Collaboration tools, Access Control, …

– E.g.: Oracle Designer, System Engineer, Enterprise Architect, Rational, Power Designer, …

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/software-eng/part1/section-2.html

18

Available modeling tools (MT)

• BPM tools– Business Process Model– help enterprises map out their existing processes and

optimize them– E.g.: Aris Tool Set, Corporate Modeler

• PM tools– Project Management– E.g.: MS Project, Primavera

• Workflow– …

19

Are we happy with them?

Available modeling tools

20

Current state issues of MT

1. Current CASE tools, BPMT, PMT, … allow to record only such objects and relationships, which had their creators in minds in the time when they were developing the tool.

22

Current state issues of MT

2. Objects and relationships, we focus on when modeling various aspects of business, are continually changing.

3. Problem of effective communication within any IT project lies nearly allways on boundaries of capability of a given modeling tool(… thus the model doesn’t represent the reality appropriately)

23Business Womanwww.3-d-models.com

Business Manwww.3-d-models.com

24Megan Foxhttp://www.multiversodc.com/v2/2009/03/megan-fox-estara-em-hex/

Brad Pitthttp://www.flickr.com/photos/23407670@N07/

25

Current state issues of MT

4. Except of some isolated cases, there are only few ways to extend used MT by constructs which are needed for current specific requirements.

5. A problem arises in integration of some partial views into one common view.

26

Current state issues of MT

6. There exists no criteria based on modeling capabilities of MT according to which the MTs could be ranked.

http://www.crowestudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/smart11.jpg

27

Current state issues of MT

7. In fact we are not able to answer the following question: “What could be expected from an MT of a given MT class?”

8. Or a question: “What is missing in given MT for our specific need and by which other MT could we suplement it?”

28

Example 1: Rational

• Built on UML(UML originaly intended to standardize modeling methods; in the end

was created a container for all modeling technics – diagrams – which proved to be competent regarding to OOP)

• Operations of this tool give semantics to UML diagrams

• It's possible to add another icons, but only without possibility to add operational semantics

• Mutual connection of various views (diagrams) of a modeled system is a problem

• Actual problems: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (all !)

29

1. Records only what had the creator in mind2. Objects and relationships are continually

changing3. Problems lie nearly always on boundaries of

capability of a given modeling tool4. few ways to extend used MT by new constructs5. Problem of integration of partial views into one

common view6. No ranking criteria for MTs7. “What could be expected from an MT of a given

MT class?”8. “What is missing in a given MT for our specific

need and by which other MT could we supplement it?”

30

Example 2: MetaEdit+ Method Workbench

• Intention to offer tool enabling easy construction of CASE tool specific for given problem.

• Problems 1, 2 and 4 seems to be solved somehow. But:

• We have to create constucts, that allready exists in some other CASE tools.

• Problem 3 is solved slightly: MetEdit+ offers practically only diagram creation. So even problem 4 is solved only slightly!

• Problems 5–7 not solved. Problem 8 – only diagrams without semantics: again nothing.

31

1. Records only what had the creator in mind2. Objects and relationships are continually

changing3. Problems lie nearly always on boundaries of

capability of a given modeling tool4. few ways to extend used MT by new constructs5. Problem of integration of partial views into one

common view6. No ranking criteria for MTs7. “What could be expected from an MT of a given

MT class?”8. “What is missing in a given MT for our specific

need and by which other MT could we supplement it?”

32

What cause this state?

The reason is obvious:

• A classics of business is: Get USING as fast as possible, there is no time for long MENTIONING !!!

• The result of it is: “Bottom-up approach”.

33

Bottom-up building MT

• MT is created for specific particular problem

• … according to current needs and requirements

• … without any analysis of a position of a problem within other problems (already modeled or worthy to be modeled)

• In the given specific situation it is a pragmatic and effective approach.

34

Facts and consequences

• Bottom-up approach is not supported by any theory of measuring (or more precisely comparing modeling capabilities) of built tools.

• It leads to tools, which are not able to solve previously unexpected problems.

• Such tools are “products” but not “Service Systems” or a “good components of Service Systems”.

35

Service System

• Service system is a composite of agents (including both, people and artificial ones), technology, environment, and/or organization units of agents and/or technology, functioning in space-time and cyberspace for a given period of time.

• There is always lot of contexts from which the service system could be evaluated, explicated and comprehended.

• There exists at least one context from which the roles of Client, of Provider, and of Target could be recognized on agents or environment.

36

CLIENT PROVIDER

TARGET

Individual orOrganization orTechnology (owned or operated byProvider)

Individual orOrganization

(private or public,human or semi-human

living or artificial)

The reality to be transformed or operated on by P for the sake of C(people and dimensions of, business and dimensions of, products, technical artifacts, environment, information,codified knowledge)

P provides service to C; C co-operates with P;value co-production;value proposition;information shared

P is responsible for actions with TC is owner of T

or C needs an addedvalue on T

C P

T

MENTION

USE

MEN

TIO

N /

USE

C P

T

C P

T

TIME

CONTEXT

37

Evaluation

• Available MTs (modeling tools) are not satisfactory for needs of current service oriented business.

• When we extend concept of MT also to company’s IS (such IS models reality of the company’s business), the situation is pitiful.

• Current MTs always encounter boundaries of their usefulness!!!